>> multiple ways to handle string formatting > This is a problem? Yes, if you think, "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
This is the only compelling reason I've seen to switch to Python 3.
If you really want to run faster, you should try a new language. 30-40% for multiprocessing is nowhere near the benefit you'd get from a single threaded implementation in C, C++, Java, Rust, Ocaml, Go, or even…
> It's not that it helps in a particular way (though more on that below), it's just that starting with Python 2 now necessarily leads to rewrites later on. While you can see packages not supporting Python 3 (there are…
> The clean break of 3 and the sanity it brings to the language is undeniable. Well, I can't deny they broke it, but sanity is pretty deniable. Python has always been a dynamic language, and one of the core mantras was…
>> multiple ways to handle string formatting > This is a problem? Yes, if you think, "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
This is the only compelling reason I've seen to switch to Python 3.
If you really want to run faster, you should try a new language. 30-40% for multiprocessing is nowhere near the benefit you'd get from a single threaded implementation in C, C++, Java, Rust, Ocaml, Go, or even…
> It's not that it helps in a particular way (though more on that below), it's just that starting with Python 2 now necessarily leads to rewrites later on. While you can see packages not supporting Python 3 (there are…
> The clean break of 3 and the sanity it brings to the language is undeniable. Well, I can't deny they broke it, but sanity is pretty deniable. Python has always been a dynamic language, and one of the core mantras was…